Mr Sherard Cowper-Coles (crazy name, crazy guy) is the former Brit Ambassador to Kabul. In his book, "Cables from Kabul", he points out that the USA spends US$125Billion per year in Afghanistan. Yes. Together with the Iraq War 2, the USA has spent US$2Trillion. Wow.

Imagine what the USA could do with that sort of money today.

Out.

That doesn't take into account the costs to simply maintain military readiness.

Mr Sherard Cowper-Coles (crazy name, crazy guy) is the former Brit Ambassador to Kabul. In his book, "Cables from Kabul", he points out that the USA spends US$125Billion per year in Afghanistan. Yes. Together with the Iraq War 2, the USA has spent US$2Trillion. Wow.

Imagine what the USA could do with that sort of money today.

Out.

My preference would be NOTHING! Just less debt! Unfortunately, most people advocating military and war cutbacks have all sorts of way to spend the money.

Look at the history of countries that have allowed minorities to block majority governments at every turn. It's an ugly violent history. The extent to which it happens in the States is a terrible idea.

Also comparing to a parliamentary system is problematic. If you look at it one way, the democrats are the minority blocking the majority because the house is republicans and the house initiates certain bills. If you look at it another way congress is split so there is no majority. If you look at president as in charge of government then yes minority is blocking majority.

I was more alluding to pre-midterm Congress where the Repub used the filibuster to wreck anything and everything that Obama tried to do. A filibuster is totally unnecessary in the US system.

You have one house elected mostly by a proportional vote on how many people live in a state, then you have the Senate which gives equal power to big and small states, you have executive authority to veto anything coming out of the Houses, and then you have the Supreme Court defending the constitution which can over-ride all of the above.

Needing 60% of votes to pass legislation makes no sense at all. I hope if the dems get knocked out of power that they use the filibuster in the same way to repubs did.

Fixed. The Cult of Reagan which has been fostered in the Republican Party is analogous to the Cult of Mary in the Catholic Church, which is all the more interesting when you consider how the Party sold out to the fundamentalists in the late 1970s.

I oppose targeting taxes in ANY way. Tax is for revenue. Not morality, retirement planning, home buying, subsidizing preferred businesses, charity etc. You donate money to poor or go to Vegas and gamble. I don't want to control anyone.

Progressive I am ok with but I believe in income equality. Capital gains, earned, inheritance, lottery, dividend interest. I don't care.

So are any of these ideas socialist capitalist other? They may be incredibly dumb ideas. I just want to stop controlling people and have equality under the law.

A reply with no content. Explain why they are dumb. Is it important to control behavior with taxes? Which behaviors and why? Should the way you make money affect how much tax you pay? Details please. My neutrality of taxing stems from a bias of not trying to control people; not an analysis of best social and fiscal policy. I am in no way tied to these ideas.